"Freedom" is overrated. Give me money, you can have my "freedom"!

[punkbass2000]

Well, the real problem is semantical. What constitutes Utilitarianism and how many modifiers (like "'love thy neighbor as you love thyself'") do you need? When does it stop being Utilitarianism? Where do you draw the lines (ie. how many slavery-like qualities can you add before it breaks a qualifier?)? Am I really free to choose a minimum wage job that provides little more than room and board? Why is that different from slavery in a free market economy? Some argue that I could, in theory, get a better job by one means or another and that this is reasonable, but options that are available to some are not available to all. There are notions that hard-working/innovative/intelligent/etc. people get more jobs for better money and so forth and this is that motivation that drives it. One problem: there is no correlation known between any of these qualities (ranked as objectively as possible) and higher paying jobs. The only quality that appears to be related to income at all is physical attractiveness. Throw in the fact that companies like MicroSoft do better than others because of marketing and other superficialities rather than quality service/products, and you're really in a mess. The system does not sort itself out as Smith predicted and you're left with a bunch of inadequate methods of determining "freedom" and "happiness". Utilitarianism is no more than anothr stab in the dark. Fine, in principle, but difficult to implement in any meaningful way. Russell's quote is spot on, but fails to tell the whole truth of the matter. It's a fine ideal and something to work towards, but, not unlike direct democracy, socialism (all conceivably Utilitarian values), wholly impractical for anything more than a small group. I would estimate 100 people or less. The real trick would be convincing the leaders of large nations to give up their power to allow the world to divide in to millions of completely independent states. The next trick would be ensuring the less happy nations from invading the more superficially successful nations. Also, overcoming procreation and other diversity problems could be complicated. Generally, such morals have not been embraced on a large scale since prehistory.

 

[Gothmog]

A much better critique than your original slavery problem, and I agree with the gist of it.

However, the idea is not to create a blueprint for utopia but a guideline for making rational decisions from an ethical point of view.

Many of your objections are not framed as specific problems, but as generalities that have at their root the current situational realities that individual humans exist within. And so are not answerable with any specific solutions.

The idea of maximizing happiness and minimizing pain as stated necessarily involves treating other peoples feelings as equal to ones own as far as I can see. That is not a modifier of the original idea.

Certainly modifiers are necessary, specifically referring to: what are pleasure and pain, how are they to be quantified, and to what extent should any produced guidelines be left open to future modification. This is, in part, why social freedoms are felt to be so important and only to be sacrificed where completely convincing arguments can be made about the benefit to the group. Taxes and vaccinations come under that heading in most peoples honest estimation. There are elements of the tyrrany of the majority in both of these realities.

You make a few arguments about higher paying jobs… I’m not sure what you are getting at with that. Are you saying that all (or at least the most important) pleasure and pain stem from differing levels of financial compensation? That seems preposterous to me. Perhaps I am missing your point.

As for any ethical system, utilitarianism is supposed to give guidance about the correctness of actions within a group. I think you will find that if you look at specific situations then the principle will give some guidance. You need to start with the way reality presents its self, not some idea of how it should be.

If, in the future, some objective method of quantifying pleasure and pain from humanities perspective were available. Say a gestalt expression of humanities consciousness in the form of a computer or other entity. Then the vagueness would be removed, but still I don’t think utopia would be reached. Utopia is a dream, it is an unobtainable perfection.

 

[Smidlee]

This is a very interesting thread. First freedom is only one side of the coin while bondage/responsibility is the other.
As the saying goes:
"there is freedom in slavery and slavery in freedom." freedom in one area will bring you into bondage in another area. So all freedom has it's cost. A good example would be I'm work for a company. The owner of this company has more wealth so more freedom in one area yet as a worker I have more freedom than he does in another. I can leave my job and forget about it until the next day but the owner has a lot more responsibility on his shoulderwhich makes it a lot harder not to take his job home with him. So in wealth, the owner has more freedom when it comes to money yet because of the responsibility of the business has less freedom in free time. In another words, the owner is more of a slave to the company than I.
Also the more money you have the more you have to lose so the more responsibility you have to keep it and use it wisely.
the more cars,boats,(women j/k)etc. you have, the more time and money you have to spend to keep them up.

If you have total freedom from laws then this would lead to more lawless which leads to more fear to step outside your own home and less freedom to walk down the street without being rob.. Also some who believe the freedom to do as they please will find themselves a slave to their own lust: drugs, alcohol, etc.

 

[bigfatron]

What?

People in North Korea are watched 24/7, anyone can be sent to a labour camp for voicing the "wrong" opinion. How is that not a well-structured constraint on freedom?

Seriously, do you believe in what you say? Do you think the average north-korean has more freedoms then the average european or american?

I dit it? You're arguing that NK is more free then the West, for Christ sakes!

You seem to ignore, in an almost dishonest fashion, that the citizens of dictatorships(like NK) have MUCH more restrictions on freedoms then the citizens of democracies. And those restrictions are very well structured, with political police, torture chambers, labour/doctrination camps, etc.

I don't think you read my posts at all - show me anywhere that I said North Korea was more free than America!

In fact I've said the opposite - I don't believe North Korea has a system of well-constructed constraints that lead to a smooth functioning society, and I am totally baffled by why you keep telling me I think and say the opposite of what I actually think and actually said.

 

[bigfatron]

Without Laws and trials the rulers/strong people are free to violate the rights of the ruled/weak people. Laws exist, or rather should exist, merely to protect the individual rights of all against abuse from power.

"You can't shoot someone" is protecting the freedom of the person who would end up shot.

"You can't drinve without a seatbelt" is a stupid restriction, present in nearly all countries. Dictatorships have thousands, if not millions, of stupid restrictions unheard of in the most developed nations. That is the main point that you seem to ignore.

The Law is necessary to protect individual rights, so the Law can go hand to hand with the protection of freedom - which doesn't mean that it always does.

I'm not ignoring anything - law imposes constraints on inidivduals to the better good (supposedly) of society. All laws say 'You cannot' in one form or another.

Now I would agree that the intent of these laws is to preserve freedoms of the other individuals, groups or the state - for instance the seatbelt law is designed to preserve the general public from the cost of treatment and support of individuals who don't buckle up, get killed or injured and become (or cause their dependents to become) an unnecessary burden on the state.

That's what it is about - balancing constraints on freedom with the good of society.

The Constitution is the Law.

The only place you see freedoms defined and supported is in the constitution - 'you have the right to...' . Law and constitution are related but certainly not the same - the UK has a written body of law but an unwritten constitution, for instance. The law is an aspect of the constitution amongst many others.

You seem to assume that all Laws restrict freedom on the same manner, which is obviously false. The basic Laws, the ones we really need, are the ones who basically protect individual rights, like the Law that bans murder. So while you may argue that this Law is restricting a behaviour(murder), it does so in order to protect the right of other individuals to live.

Other Laws don't protect any individual rights, they merely restrict freedoms. Like the seatbelt Law you talked about(typicall Nanny-state Law), or restrictions on freedom of speech. This second kind of Law is present on Western Democracies - but is much more present in dicatorships.

It seems to me that you divide laws into two classes - the ones you agree with and like and those you disagree with and dislike. Then you try to claim that the laws that you like provide freedom and the laws you dislike do not.

The reality is that all laws restrict individual freedom to - supposedly - enhance societal effectiveness. You disagree with those laws where you think the trade-off is unwarranted, and that is your privilege. But the laws you support still restrict freedom. All laws restrict freedom - fact. Get over it.

This argument began because you stated that the existence of law and courts of law demonstrated and gave rise to greater freedom - my contention is that it neither shows more or less 'freedom' but demonstrates a more structured approach to managing the dynamic between individual liberty and effective functioning of society. Courts and laws can be used to improve society (the US) or help it be repressive (N Korea). They are a means, not an end.

You seem to ignore, in an almost dishonest fashion, that the citizens of dictatorships(like NK) have MUCH more restrictions on freedoms then the citizens of democracies. And those restrictions are very well structured, with political police, torture chambers, labour/doctrination camps, etc.

You seem to want 'freedom' laid out on a neat line, Bush style:
this end - unfree dictatorships (N Korea), way bad
that end - western capitalist democracies (US), way good

But logically the 'freedom' spectrum lies from total control at one end to total anarchy (100% unfettered feedom of action) at the other.

The most desirable position for a society on this line lies somewhere toward the middle - exactly where depends on your political views, life experience, wealth, etc, but only the most die-hard nut would argue for either of the absolute poles.

What gives rise to a successful society IMHO is an effective balance between individual freedom and collective responsibility - the US, as a highly successful society, has achieved such a balance, North Korea clearly has not.

But somewhere like, say, Zaire where there was anarchy for many years was a hideous place to live - a frighteningly unsuccessful society. But it was definitely very 'free' - you could do what the hell you liked with impunity, kill someone or starve to death, it mattered not.

So I object to Bush-style ultra-simplifications and slogans: 'freedom is good'. They stifle thoughtful and constructive debate.

The closest country to the appalling society portayed in '1984' is probably N Korea, but I'm thinking there are aspects of the more subtle horrors of 'Animal Farm' in such sloganeering.

 

[King Alexander]

IMHO, 'Freedom-is-overrated' has MUCH to do with the IDEALS of different societies and the the ideals of each person, INDIVIDUALLY.

It reminds me of that movie(don't remember the name now) with Nicholas Cage where he was a police officer that won the Lotto(or something) and he SHARED his shares, after he won($1m), with that waitress(because ha hadn't money to pay for his coffee the day before, and promished half of the stake, if he won it).

--- Ok, this movie is only an example, but you get the point - and no, you're not a LOSER if you do something similar/comparable(as the police officer in the movie did), as some false 'modern' ideals suggest.

 

[punkbass2000]

'It Could Happen to You', IIRC.

 

[King Alexander]

Thanks, punkbass2000.

 

[punkbass2000]

A much better critique than your original slavery problem, and I agree with the gist of it.

Thanks, I try

However, the idea is not to create a blueprint for utopia but a guideline for making rational decisions from an ethical point of view.

Many of your objections are not framed as specific problems, but as generalities that have at their root the current situational realities that individual humans exist within. And so are not answerable with any specific solutions.

True. I'll admit I'm better at finding problems than creating solutions. Utilitarianism is a nice ideal and can certainly be used a construct for making small scale decisions. "No plan survives contact with the enemy", or some such. One criticism I have against your argument is that current situational realities are just that; situations that are, at present, needing to be dealt with. If you throw that out of the equation you may as well tout communism and other nice ideals that appear to be unworkable.

The idea of maximizing happiness and minimizing pain as stated necessarily involves treating other peoples feelings as equal to ones own as far as I can see. That is not a modifier of the original idea.

Yes, but how? To borrow from 'The Simple Life 3' thread, Paris Hilton seems to enjoy things that make other people unhappy. Simple things that would probably make 95%+ of the world's population elated would make her scoff, I imagine. One person's happiness is another's suffering, often enough. It would be difficult to come up with a reasonable system for determining what caused what without immense bureaucratic cross-sections of the entire populace, and even that assumes that people know what they want, which they, generally, don't seem to. I disagree that "doing unto others" is an inherent tenet of Utilitarianism. If it's one on one, then yes, it is, because you're two people, assuming your pleasure doesn't outweigh their suffering. But what if it does? Shortly into highschool, I took the attitude of being a bit of a clown/jester for the amusement of people I don't like. I let them laugh at my expense and took it as a positive. Most people, however, I believe would find that situation intolerable and unfair. Yet, making ten people laugh at only the cost of one's feelings makes sense by a Utilitarian philosophy. You need to add tenets for individual rights and freedoms and have a proverbial "Constitutional Utilitarianism" to eliminate these problems. If you go that far you may as well just abandon Utilitarianism as nothing more than a symbolic gesture, perhaps including it in your state's creed or vision statement or whatever. You are no longer using Utilitarianism as your highest good; Liberalism would better reflect it, so why mix terms?

Certainly modifiers are necessary, specifically referring to: what are pleasure and pain, how are they to be quantified, and to what extent should any produced guidelines be left open to future modification.

These are not modifiers per se, so much as much needed definitions for Utilitarianism.

This is, in part, why social freedoms are felt to be so important and only to be sacrificed where completely convincing arguments can be made about the benefit to the group. Taxes and vaccinations come under that heading in most peoples honest estimation. There are elements of the tyrrany of the majority in both of these realities.

Yes, the eternal struggle between social, economic and political freedoms are really at the core of most political debate. In fact, that's what this thread is really about, IMO.

You make a few arguments about higher paying jobs… I’m not sure what you are getting at with that. Are you saying that all (or at least the most important) pleasure and pain stem from differing levels of financial compensation? That seems preposterous to me. Perhaps I am missing your point.

Perhaps not "happiness" per se, but freedom. In a capitalistic society, the wealthy have arguably more freedom than the poor. I, as a Canadian citizen, have every right to visit BC (and go snowboarding ), but I can't actually do it. There are, of course, obvious problems with my argument here, but they aren't too relevant to this particular tangent. What's more important is that, at least until the Liberals got into office last year in Ontario and started raising minimum wage, a person working at a typical minimum wage job full-time would only make ~14k/year. The poverty line is ~17.5k/year. This isn't that bad compared to a lot of countries and I'm not really complaining, but more making an abstract point: If working full-time at a minimum wage job yields little more than food/shelter, how is this any different than slavery? You must give a slave the necessities of life for them to be able to do what you want, so what is being gained by being a prostitute with freedom over a slave? I'm not necessarily even talking about traditional slavery. Here's a scenario I'm envisioning: I live in a house that contains 10 adults divided into four apartments (we'll leave my son, the only minor in the residence, out of the equation, if no one minds ). If one of us (10% ) became a "reasonable" slave for the benefit of the household, that would be acceptable under Utilitarianism. By "reasonable" slave I'm thinking that they would spend an eight hour day cleaning, etc., each apartment and then one day off, for a five-day cycle. They don't have to pay rent, etc. Here's the catch: None of us want to do that. Unless you're giving into the "Constitutional Utilitarianism" I mentioned above, or have a highly complex system of categorizing and quantifying pleasure/suffering, then Utilitarianism can not ethically solve this conundrum, IMO. Nine of us would have a great deal of the drudgery removed from our lives at the expense of one person being a slave for forty hours out of every 120. Not that different than the current sytem, IMO.

As for any ethical system, utilitarianism is supposed to give guidance about the correctness of actions within a group. I think you will find that if you look at specific situations then the principle will give some guidance. You need to start with the way reality presents its self, not some idea of how it should be.

Well, yes, I did say it can work in small groups. But that's a whole other thing. I certainly strive for Utilitarianism with my family because it can work well on that level. But there is still bickering between my girlfriend and I as to what is isn't fair, etc. And we're the only two decision-makers. An impartial judge could help us, but that is clarly impractical for a host of obvious reasons. And again, on a large scale, a nation is not likely to want another nation to come along and "unbiasedly" tell them what to do.

 

[Gothmog]

One criticism I have against your argument is that current situational realities are just that; situations that are, at present, needing to be dealt with. If you throw that out of the equation you may as well tout communism and other nice ideals that appear to be unworkable.

Yeah, I see how you could have interpreted my writing that way. But what I was trying to say was that you were jumping from the general to the specific and back. Present me with a specific situation, including the situational realities, and I will try to interpret it in terms of utilitarianism.

I agree that there are problems where no appeal can be made to utilitarianism because no agreement can be made about the global sum of pleasure and pain. This is where other ideas can come into play. Still, there are many places where the principle can be applied, and it can still be construed as the 'highest good' just not necessarily understandable by human analysis. As far as I know there is no moral system that answers all problems. Utilitarianism does a better job, and is more self consistent, than say... Christianity.

My whole purpose in bringing this philosophy up was to try and address the 'freedom is overrated' idea. I believe the idea does that. I am no utilitarian fanatic, I tend to be a practical man.

In your 10 people in a house example, the fact that we cannot quantify the net pleasure/pain leads us to have no moral grounds to force anyone to become the slave. If one person wants to, fine, if not there is not sufficient cause to apply force. This whole idea was delt with in great detail by Mill in 'On Liberty', here's the quote again that I like:

“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.”

Now I already know that many of these terms must be defined in detail. Too much detail to go into right here, perhaps agreement can never be reached on some. That is the lot of humanity.

Mill put a great deal of weight to the capacity and desire of humans to express virtue in this form. He would have said that if a convincing argument could be made in your house of 10, then at least one of the people would have wanted to perform the job (or perhaps all and you could draw lots). Volunteering for duty in WW2 is an expression of this capacity for virtue.

As far as your girlfriend, an impartial judge is an idea that helps many relationships. It is called counseling .

 

[luiz]

I'm not ignoring anything - law imposes constraints on inidivduals to the better good (supposedly) of society. All laws say 'You cannot' in one form or another.

Some Laws say "" the state may not", in other words they protect individuals.

Now I would agree that the intent of these laws is to preserve freedoms of the other individuals, groups or the state - for instance the seatbelt law is designed to preserve the general public from the cost of treatment and support of individuals who don't buckle up, get killed or injured and become (or cause their dependents to become) an unnecessary burden on the state.

Agreed, but what freedom is a Law like "You may not criticise the President"" is protecting?

Clearly, there are two types of Law. Some protect liberties, others are merely restrictive.

As for the seatbelt law, I concede that in a country with free healthcare it is indeed necessary, but it would be plain idiotic if healthcare was private.

That's what it is about - balancing constraints on freedom with the good of society.

Some dictator might argue that freedom of speech is "bad for society'', and restrict it. I don't buy this "good for society" thing.

The only place you see freedoms defined and supported is in the constitution - 'you have the right to...' . Law and constitution are related but certainly not the same - the UK has a written body of law but an unwritten constitution, for instance. The law is an aspect of the constitution amongst many others.

In my country the Constitution is a compendium of Laws, IIRC.

It seems to me that you divide laws into two classes - the ones you agree with and like and those you disagree with and dislike. Then you try to claim that the laws that you like provide freedom and the laws you dislike do not.

The reality is that all laws restrict individual freedom to - supposedly - enhance societal effectiveness. You disagree with those laws where you think the trade-off is unwarranted, and that is your privilege. But the laws you support still restrict freedom. All laws restrict freedom - fact. Get over it.

I divide those Laws on a very basic way. Some protect individual liberties, those are good. Others merely restrict them, those are bad.

Now you may argue that they all restrict some behaviours what is obviously true. But the good ones restrict behaviours that disrespect other people's lives, the bad one are merely restrictive without any protection. Like laws banning free speech.

This argument began because you stated that the existence of law and courts of law demonstrated and gave rise to greater freedom - my contention is that it neither shows more or less 'freedom' but demonstrates a more structured approach to managing the dynamic between individual liberty and effective functioning of society. Courts and laws can be used to improve society (the US) or help it be repressive (N Korea). They are a means, not an end.

I also mentioned the freedom of speech that applied to the roman citizens, in some periods of their history.

And I stand by my claim that some Laws actually protect freedoms.

You seem to want 'freedom' laid out on a neat line, Bush style:
this end - unfree dictatorships (N Korea), way bad
that end - western capitalist democracies (US), way good

But logically the 'freedom' spectrum lies from total control at one end to total anarchy (100% unfettered feedom of action) at the other.

The most desirable position for a society on this line lies somewhere toward the middle - exactly where depends on your political views, life experience, wealth, etc, but only the most die-hard nut would argue for either of the absolute poles.

What gives rise to a successful society IMHO is an effective balance between individual freedom and collective responsibility - the US, as a highly successful society, has achieved such a balance, North Korea clearly has not.

But somewhere like, say, Zaire where there was anarchy for many years was a hideous place to live - a frighteningly unsuccessful society. But it was definitely very 'free' - you could do what the hell you liked with impunity, kill someone or starve to death, it mattered not.

So I object to Bush-style ultra-simplifications and slogans: 'freedom is good'. They stifle thoughtful and constructive debate.

The closest country to the appalling society portayed in '1984' is probably N Korea, but I'm thinking there are aspects of the more subtle horrors of 'Animal Farm' in such sloganeering.

Zaire-style anarchy is obviously bad, since the strong would ignore the individual rights of the weak.

Also, I think I was quite right when I said that the most successful societies have higher degrees of political, civil and economic liberties - and honestly I think it's hard to claim otherwise.

 

[punkbass2000]

Yeah, I see how you could have interpreted my writing that way. But what I was trying to say was that you were jumping from the general to the specific and back. Present me with a specific situation, including the situational realities, and I will try to interpret it in terms of utilitarianism.

Well, I can understand your complaint, but I think that is reasonable way to discuss something like this. Sure, we could simply discuss abstract concepts, or discuss specific scenarios and solutions, but if we're trying to determine the validity of whole worldview, we must discuss the principles but relate them in specific (even anecdotal) scenarios to gather any true meaning. 'The maximum pleasure (minimum suffering) for the maximum number of "people"' is nice, but doesn't really tell you anything useful, IMO. There is no practical way to study this empirically, so we must endeavour in this case-study style in order to have any meaningful discussion whatsoever.

I agree that there are problems where no appeal can be made to utilitarianism because no agreement can be made about the global sum of pleasure and pain. This is where other ideas can come into play. Still, there are many places where the principle can be applied, and it can still be construed as the 'highest good' just not necessarily understandable by human analysis.

OK, but trying to implement a philosophy in an arbitrary fashion just begs for criticisms of consistency.

As far as I know there is no moral system that answers all problems. Utilitarianism does a better job, and is more self consistent, than say... Christianity.

Well, come on now, that's not a really fair comment. You could say that about almost any value system . It would be like claiming a building was better designed/constructed than the Leaning Tower of Pisae

My whole purpose in bringing this philosophy up was to try and address the 'freedom is overrated' idea. I believe the idea does that. I am no utilitarian fanatic, I tend to be a practical man.

In your 10 people in a house example, the fact that we cannot quantify the net pleasure/pain leads us to have no moral grounds to force anyone to become the slave. If one person wants to, fine, if not there is not sufficient cause to apply force. This whole idea was delt with in great detail by Mill in 'On Liberty', here's the quote again that I like:

“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.”

Well, I think here's the problem, and it is somewhat semantical as you go on to suggest. As an over-arching individual catchall philosophy for living one's own life, Utilitarianism is great. Mill, IMO, was not really a Utilitarian in the sense that Bentham expounded. Mill was a liberal by and large. He was quite early in western history to be campaigning for female equality, if you know what I mean. (This, BTW, leads to another problem with many systems in the past which include "persons" as the primary subject.) To make my previous thoughts clearer, if I were you (and believe the things I think you seem to believe, which seem to largely match my own beliefs), I would call myself something more of a Socialistic Liberal ("liberal" in the true sense, BTW, like Libertarian, not the proverbial "left-wing"), insomuch as I, on a very base and small scale believe very strongly in the constructs of Utilitarianism but recognize the impracticality of such thought and feel that individual rights are very important, but not to the point where they outweigh social rights and freedoms; enter Socialism. There are, of course, still problems/paradoxes I struggle with, but I feel they are significantly more complex, esoteric and generally more difficult quandries than the "easy" ones I threw at pure Utilitarianism in my initial post.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Gothmog]

Well we can do a critical analysis of specific situations (as I have tried to do - the case study as you put it), or we can deal with intuitions. I feel that you were trying to mix the two.

Mill was a utilitarian in the sense that Mill expounded. Bentham had a whole school named after him, the Benthamists. Mill outlined his form of utilitarianism in many of his writings. "Utilitarianism", and "On Liberty" come to mind, on a more practical level "Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform" and "Considerations on Representative Government". I never read his posthumous works, but I am getting in the mood to now.

As I said elsewhere 'On Liberty' was a book that I remember as crystallizing ideas I had been forming, and influenced me as much or more than any other book or person in my life. I haven’t read it in over a decade, I shall have to revisit it.

I don't call myself a utilitarianist, if that's what you mean. In political contexts - social liberal fiscal conservative, in religious terms an agnostic, and in moral terms I lean towards utilitarianism. I am certainly a socialist in the general sense, but I feel that in fact utilitarianism better describes the reasoning behind that term as well as the moral underpinnings. I do feel there are advantages to a mix of the capitalist/socialist model.

How do you describe yourself in moral terms?

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, I think we've come to as close an understanding as possible I know there are Benthamists and Mill considered himself a Utilitarian, but I like to seperate terms based on Occum's razer. My above definition is what I consider Utilitarianism to be in a nutshell, and I credit Benthem for primarily inventing and publicizing that concept. Whether you call it Utilitarianism or Benthamism is immaterial. As I say, I don't consider Mill to be a Utilitarian too much, even if he refers to himself as such.

How do you describe yourself in moral terms?

I don't.

 

[E-Raser]

If I was rich, I would merely move out of the said country.

Dictatorships are bribable.

You'll simply end up as copped meat loaf while your belongings are faithfully kept by the gov. Stop dreaming!

 

[Gothmog]

punkbass -
That kind of talk will get Bush elected as prime minister of Waterloo...

 

[punkbass2000]

WhichKind?

 

[Gothmog]

Not being able to describe yourself in moral terms.

 

[punkbass2000]

I didn't say I wasn't able to, I just don't. It would be rather lengthy thesis, let me tell you , and would be rather constantly subject to such change that I probably would never be able to finish it. But yeah, I guess that means I can't, technically. Doesn't mean I can't come up with a reasonable enough approximation of a moral compass to know how to vote between four major choices, though .